To provide the best experiences, we use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behavior or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes.
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
3 thoughts on “Marketing and referral fees after Jackson”
This research is flawed in that defendant solicitors are now normally on discount agreements or otherwise so that they are entitled to the same hourly rate as claimant lawyers. The gap does not exist due to marketing costs, but due to the fact that Defendant Solicitors charge their client for every second of the day, and are not historically subject to the same scrutiny as that which the claimant lawyers are, whose bills are subject to detailed or summary assessment
“Entitled to the same hourly rate as claimant lawyers”? The “same hourly rate” would only apply where the defendant obtains a positive costs order. How often do you think defendants obtain a positive costs order in their favour as opposed to claimants?
Maybe they should pick the cases they fight a lot better then Simon? Then maybe costs wouldn’t spiral
Then maybe we would stop stupid objections from defendant draftsmen that the case was so simple the office cat could run it and everything was disproportionate???
But no, this is the real world
And it got a LOT worse for us all because Insurers & Defendant Authorities got their own way on empty promises bough by stupid Government